Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—”š—µš—ŗš—²š—±š—®š—Æš—®š—± š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—¼š—» š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—¼š˜€š—¶š˜š—² š—–š—¼š—»š˜š—æš—®š—°š˜š˜€ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—æš—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "No doubt can be raised about declared material costs accepted by the service recipient. Service tax paid on a higher value makes the demand unsustainable."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: Raj Engineers š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Applicability of service tax on composite contract services. š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: Provided services for Reliance Township, Jamnagar (2005–2009), paying tax only on service portions, availing Notification No. 12/03-ST.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal held that since declared material costs were accepted, there was no basis to deny abatement under Notification No. 12/03-ST. The appellant paid service tax on a higher value than required, making the demand unsustainable. Appeal allowed.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Raj Engineers vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 23 January 2023

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own